
GeForce GTX 1650 vs RTX PRO 6000

GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

RTX PRO 6000
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar RTX PRO 6000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The RTX PRO 6000 is significantly newer (2025 vs 2019). The RTX PRO 6000 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The RTX PRO 6000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 445.2% higher G3D Mark score and 1100% more VRAM (48 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1650.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX PRO 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-445.2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+445.2%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🏆Elite Architecture (Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) / 5nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (48 GB) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | Standard Size (304mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $8,565 for the RTX PRO 6000, it costs 99% less. While it maintains significantly lower raw performance, this results in a 1994.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX PRO 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+1994.8%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($8,565) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and RTX PRO 6000

GeForce GTX 1650
The GeForce GTX 1650 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1485 MHz to 1665 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,869 points. Launch price was $149.

RTX PRO 6000
The RTX PRO 6000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in 2025. It features the Blackwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2017 MHz to 2407 MHz. It has 24064 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 600W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 188 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 42,899 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the RTX PRO 6000's 42,899 — the RTX PRO 6000 leads by 445.2%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the RTX PRO 6000 uses Blackwell 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 24,064 (RTX PRO 6000). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 115.8 TFLOPS (RTX PRO 6000). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2407 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX PRO 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 42,899+445% |
| Architecture | Turing | Blackwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 24064+2586% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 115.8 TFLOPS+3781% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2407 MHz+45% |
| ROPs | 32 | 176+450% |
| TMUs | 56 | 752+1243% |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 23.5 MB+2570% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 128 MB+12700% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX PRO 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the RTX PRO 6000 has 48 GB. The RTX PRO 6000 offers 1100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 960 GB/s (RTX PRO 6000) — a 650% advantage for the RTX PRO 6000. Bus width: 128-bit vs 384-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 128 MB (RTX PRO 6000) — the RTX PRO 6000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX PRO 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 48 GB+1100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 960 GB/s+650% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 384-bit+200% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 128 MB+12700% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (RTX PRO 6000). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX PRO 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.2+2% |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs NVENC 9th Gen (RTX PRO 6000). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs NVDEC 6th Gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs AV1,HEVC,H.264,VP9 (RTX PRO 6000).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX PRO 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | NVENC 9th Gen |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | NVDEC 6th Gen |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | AV1,HEVC,H.264,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the RTX PRO 6000's 600W — a 155.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (RTX PRO 6000). Power connectors: None vs 16-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 304mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX PRO 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-88% | 600W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-40% | 500W |
| Power Connector | None | 16-pin |
| Length | 229mm | 304mm |
| Height | 111mm | 137mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-13% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+47% | 71.5 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the RTX PRO 6000 launched at $8565 and now averages $8565. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 99.1% less ($8490 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5.0 (RTX PRO 6000) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 1998% better value. The RTX PRO 6000 is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | RTX PRO 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-98% | $8565 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-99% | $8565 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+1998% | 5.0 |
| Codename | TU117 | GB202 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | 2025 |
| Ranking | #323 | #608 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.











